Those watching closely the trial of the military officers being involved in the aborted plan to withdraw support from Gloria Arroyo’s bogus presidency have been given hope that the panel led by Lt. Gen. Alexander B. Yano trying the case might yet be fair.

The hope comes from Yano’s decision last Tuesday to release the Pre-Trial Investigation Report prepared by a team from the Office of Judge Advocate General led by Col. Al Perreras dated Oct. 25, 2006. This is small victory considering that the prosecution had been wanting to shortcut the process and go ahead with the trial without even giving the respondents a copy of the basis of the accusations against them.

If JAGO ‘s copying machines don’t break down, the 28 respondents led by Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda should have their copy of the 210- page PTI report this week. As preliminary investigations go, their lawyers are given 15 days to comment.

It would be interesting to see how the Yano court would proceed because a PTI report we obtained unofficially showed that the Perreras team had found that "there is no adequate basis for appreciating the existence of a prima facie case to indict or prosecute any and all of the respondent officers charged for violation of the 67th Article of War" which is attempting to create or begin mutiny.

Based on the findings, the Perreras panel recommended the "dismissal of the charge and specification for violation of the 67th Article of War (Attempting to Create or Begin Mutiny) against all of the respondent Officers for lack of factual and legal bases without prejudice to its re-opening when the evidence warrants."

It also recommended "Referral to trial by court-martial of the individual Charge for violation of the 96th Article of War (Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman), as amended, against the following respondent officers: Maj. Gen. Renato P. Miranda; Brig. Gen. Danilo O. Lim; Col. Ariel O. Querubin; Col. Orlando E. de Leon; Lt. Col. Custodio J. Parcon; Lt. Col. Achilles S. Segumallian; Lt. Col. Nestor F. Flordeliza; Lt. Col. Edmundo D. Malabanjot;

Maj. Jason Laureano Aquino; Maj. Oriel L. Pangcog; Maj. Francisco Domingo R. Fernandez; Capt. James C. Sabadan; Capt. Montano B. Almodovar; Capt. Joey T. Fontiveros; Capt. Isagani O. Criste; Capt. William F. Upano; Capt. Dante D. Langkit; and 1Lt. Belinda R. Ferrer.

There’s a recommendation of "Referral to trial by court-martial of the individual Charge for violation of the 97th Article of War (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline) against Col. Querubin and Lt. Col. Segumallian.

Lawyers of the respondents said there’s a provision in the Articles of War that "No charge for trial shall be referred to a court martial without first being referred to his Staff Judge Advocate for review and advice."

Their interpretation is that since the provision speaks only of "charges for trial", the charge of mutiny should not be included in the trial.

Staff Judge Advocate Col. Pedro Davila said he did review the PTI and submitted his advice to Esperon but declined to confirm reports that he affirmed the Perreras recommendation.

Esperon has said that his basis for charging the officers of mutiny were the PTI and PTA reports. He also said it was his prerogative to overrule recommendations to him.

The respondents’ lawyers said, the Articles of War allows the Chief of Staff to modify the recommended charges but he cannot reverse a recommendation for dismissal.

Then there’s the issue the legality of a "special general court martial" which Querubin’s counsel Homobono Adaza describes as "no such animal". Plus the fact that it was convened by Esperon who is the accuser and will be a witness, and a judge because he will eventually review the decision of the court panel.

The March 19 hearing should be interesting.